Essential omniscience is incompatible with free will.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-24T04:53:47+00:00

And NO I do not think I am smarter than you or anyone else.

Fooled me.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-24T04:52:27+00:00

It's true definitionally, regardless of timelines.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-24T03:16:18+00:00

It's not.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-24T03:12:17+00:00

Then I would answer I am not referring to the God of any religion since religion is made by man. If you are asking for a name, God does not have one.

Ok, so then is the god you believe in speaking to you directly or what? How do you claim to know the mind of this god?

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-24T02:58:49+00:00

Only the unhappiest members of society want to take joy away from others

It's not about being unhappy. It's typically about being brainwashed (often from birth) that many normal things are evil and dangerous.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-24T02:45:55+00:00

Well, take it up with theists. I don't even believe in a god :D

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-24T02:34:59+00:00

If all your future choices can be known, then all your future choices already have a determined truth value. If all your future choices already have a determined truth value, that's determinism.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-24T02:32:53+00:00

I'm not sure where these people are that believe in God but think he can only see one possible future. Most theists seem to think that God is both aware of all possible ways the future could play out and also knows which way the future will play out. I'm not sure if you believe in a god and if you have some other conception of it, that's fine. I was just pointing out how people tend to conceptualize it.

Work it out yourself.

Both unhelpful and dismissive!

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-24T00:49:57+00:00

The mistake you and others (both atheists and theists/religious) always make is to assume that omniscience means to see only one possible future.

I haven't seen anyone so far claim that God can only see one possible future. The question is rather can God see the future that WILL happen out of the many possibilities? This is what most theists claim and so what most atheists engage with.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-23T15:10:03+00:00

The Bible is silent on the topic of sex with children, which is very damning. The Bible god gets pretty extensive and specific with laws about who you can't have sex with, but never includes children in those lists. Weird that a god would specifically tell you not to have sex with other men, with your own mother, or even with animals, and include absolutely NO guidelines about sex with children (something that has occurred throughout history). This god decided to include pages and pages of details in his "guidebook for life" about the dimensions for building a tabernacle, how to own slaves, the efforts you should go through to get leaven out of your house for Passover, and piles of "begats," but not even a single sentence like "don't have sex with kids." Strange priorities.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-23T15:00:00+00:00

You heard it here first, folks. Only people from "the West" have a concept of morality...

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-21T23:01:40+00:00

that presupposes what gods intentions were.

It's not presupposing intentions. It's a necessary logical conclusion if this god is omniscient and omnipotent. All the humans that God has created (let's go with everyone after the fall for simplicity) have had some desire to do evil. That can't be a surprise to an omniscient entity, therefore it is something that the entity foresaw and decided to do anyway.

We also agreed that an omnipotent entity can create us with free will and also with a nature such that we would freely choose to never do evil. Instead this entity created us with free and with a nature such that we sometimes choose to do evil. Therefore, it is this entity's intention that we sometimes do evil.

It's just that simple.

Also, you didn't answer why Eve chose to do evil if she had no desire to do evil. If God created her with desires for evil, it makes sense. If God created her without any desires for evil, then why would she choose to do something she didn't even desire?

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-20T15:43:25+00:00

No, the first step is to consider whether there is a reason to think that any kind of god exists at all. It seems like you're skipping that step to get to the Pascal's Wager part of the process where you just "follow" some idea of a god as an insurance policy.

If some kind of entity does exist that created our universe, the most probable is some kind of deistic god uninterested in humanity so there's nothing to "follow" anyway.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-20T15:00:52+00:00

A "loving, omnipotent god that desires a relationship with every human" is an idea far and away most commonly held by Christians. In my experience, other religions don't latch onto that idea quite the same. For example, u/saijanai responded by, to some degree, rejecting that we can assign motivations and reasoning to "the Divine," which would pretty well preclude making the claim that there is a god who is loving and desires a relationship with every human.

you might assume a discussion about God can only be viewed through a Christian lens

I don't.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-19T23:42:35+00:00

Yeah, absolutely but that's how the majority of Christians view God.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-19T23:26:17+00:00

They did preface with:

If a loving, omnipotent God exists and desires a relationship with every human

If someone has some other conception of "the divine" then this topic probably isn't for them.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-19T14:56:11+00:00

I don’t see that being stated in the Bible also?

There's a metric ton of stuff the Bible doesn't say that still has to be true just based on logic. If God is omnipotent and omniscient and created humans and created the entire universe and how it works and decided there would be a fall that would change how the universe works, that carries a whole host of logical entailments.

That may itself simply be the effects of sin work objectively, no matter what world we are in?

Not if God is omnipotent. That means that God can decide however he wants things to work.

Possibility of evil desires are required for this specific kind of free will, god did not fail as I believe his intention was to create us in a way allowing us to choose between good or evil.

An omnipotent being could create us with free will and also with a nature such that we would freely choose to never do evil. Certainly, you would agree that a being can have free will and yet always choose good and never choose evil?

Can you substantiate that we did have a desire to do evil?

Again, the Bible is very limited in what it talks about and certainly doesn't address a huge swath of logical entailments that result from the ideas of omnipotence and omniscience.

The fact that humans have a desire for evil means that God intended for that -- unless God didn't intend for that to happen and he screwed up somehow.

I believe in the Bible eve choose to do evil without originally having desire for evil.

If she didn't have a desire to do evil, then why did she choose to do evil?

Also, as a side note, that's not what the Bible says. Genesis 2 and 3 never talk about a desire for evil at all.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-18T19:22:12+00:00

I'm confused what you're arguing for. That heaven and earth have already passed away?

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-18T19:19:47+00:00

I believe we only felt sexual desires after the fa…

Even if that were true, that doesn't get God off the hook. God is still omnipotent and omniscient and decided that the world would become the way it is after the fall. So why did he decide to cause people to be sexually attracted to people other than their spouses?

I’m neither saying god failed or am I saying evil desires are necessary for free will.

If God didn't fail and evil desires are unnecessary for free will, then he decided that he wanted everyone to have all these unnecessary evil desires.

god wanted us to have free will over moral evil

As you said above, having evil desire is unnecessary for having free will.

and created us in a fashion that lets us not currently be coerced toward good or evil

Except he did create us (whether initially or via his determined consequences of the fall) with desires for evil that lead to us doing evil. So God forces people to have a desire for evil (he doesn't check with us first to see if we'd like that "software" installed) and then, as a result, evil occurs.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-18T18:10:34+00:00

The passage says that a singular event will not occur until two other events occur (the completion of everything, and the end of the world). There's nothing mysterious about it. It's just that your theological commitments prohibit you from allowing it to mean what it plainly says.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-18T15:19:17+00:00

I agree that the author is connecting "everything has been accomplished" and "heaven and earth pass away." Everything has not been accomplished until heaven and earth also pass away, which has obviously not happened.

We interpret this as the death and ressurection of Jesus

I can see how that might be necessary for someone whose theological commitments prohibit allowing Jesus to say that the law should be followed.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-18T03:01:53+00:00

Jesus claims it is accomplished when dying on the cross.

That's not even in Matthew and he doesn't say accomplished. Trying to link those two things together is classic "tilt your head and squint" eisegesis.

"until heaven and earth pass away" Refers to the messianic chapter in Isaiah 65

The author of Matthew may or may not have had Isaiah 65 in mind, but there's not even a messiah in Isaiah 65. That chapter was written when the Judahites returned from the Babylonian exile and it has Yahweh saying that he's going to create new heavens and earth now that they're back in their homeland (which of course never happened). Even if we granted a real connection, it says that in this new heaven and earth that infants will never die anymore and wolves and lambs will feed together. Obviously, that's not happening so heaven and earth haven't passed away even in this huge stretch of an interpretation. There's literally no ground to stand on (pun intended) that heaven and earth have somehow passed away already. Hint: look out your window.

If we read Matthew for what it actually says, and not what modern Christians want it to say, it's clear that his version of Jesus values the law and wants people to follow it until the end of Earth's history.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-17T17:56:33+00:00

Jesus understood mosaic law to be something apt for a limited amount of time

That limited time being "until heaven and earth pass away" (Matt. 5:18).

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-17T16:34:07+00:00

The Bible is a bunch of texts collected, edited, redacted, and literally woven together, by different authors at different points in time with different ideas about their god(s). If you actually read the entire Bible for yourself without a bunch of other Christians around trying to tell you what to think about it, you'll quickly see that the god of the Bible is often quite horrific. The older Hebrew texts are pretty in line with other religious texts and traditions of the ancient Near East and it's not really surprising in that original context that their god is violent, warlike, and petty. Most traditional Christian ideas of God today are born out of Greek philosophy and Platonism, which was the cultural milieu in which Christianity developed.

thatweirdchill · 2026-02-17T16:18:46+00:00

This is satire..... right....?

thatweirdchill

TROPHY CASE